Permitting Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) Huts and Pinkham Notch Visitor Center (PNVC) in the White Mountain National Forest

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Permitting Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) Huts and Pinkham Notch

Visitor Center (PNVC) in the White Mountain National Forest

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:

Proposed Federal Action.--The proposed Federal action is to

authorize AMC under a 30-year term special use permit (38 Stat., 11.01,

as amended) to continue to occupy National Forest System (NFS) land in

order to operate, maintain, and reconstruct its facilities to provide

public recreation and information services as defined in the White

Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest

Plan) and to provide other services as outlined in the AMC's Master

Development Plan (MDP), consistent with the White Mountain National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Special Use

Permit Authority.

Based on Forest Plan goals, the primary purposes of the Huts and

Pinkham Notch Visitor Center (PNVC) are to provide recreation

opportunities and information services. Other uses proposed in AMC's

master plan are not essential to these two purposes; however, they are

not in conflict. Therefore, uses at the huts within the proposed action

include: Food and lodging (seasonally); information services; education

programs; support for research, trails, and search and rescue; and

retail sales. Uses at PNVC include: Food and lodging; visitor

information services; educational programs; administration of programs;

public meeting space; a support center for search and rescue; employee

housing; visitor center store; and other public facilities (parking,

showers). The specific activities within the authorized uses will be

reviewed through the annual Operating Plan, and subject to

environmental review as necessary. For example, we propose to authorize

Pinkham Notch Visitor Center as an administrative center for research.

Specific research proposals will be addressed on a case by case basis.

The facilities on National Forest System lands are Pinkham Notch

Visitor Center, Greenleaf Hut, Galehead Hut, Zealand Hut, Mizpah Hut,

Lakes of the Clouds Hut, Carter Notch Hut, and the area around Madison

Spring Hut (the Hut itself is on one acre of private land). There is no

proposed change to the overnight capacity at PNVC or the Huts. There

are also no proposed changes to the facilities, except for the

reconstruction of Galehead Hut and the PNVC parking lot.

The proposal to reconstruction Galehead Hut includes adding 430

square feet to the existing footprint and rotating the Hut southward 33

degrees. In addition, the septic system (gray water and grease trap)

would be moved to the north of the Hut away from the viewshed of the

Pemigewasset Wilderness.

The proposed redesign and reconstruction of the parking lot at PNVC

will occur within the existing footprint. The proposal includes: Paving

and marking the lot to maximize utilization of available parking space;

improving vegetation barriers between the lot and highway; parking and

access for persons with disabilities; a minimum 3-foot grass perimeter

for snow loading and filtering runoff; and recycling pavement where

removed. The existing parking lot lighting will be retained.

This proposed action includes monitoring impacts of solid and

sanitary waste disposal on water quality, and the effects of soil

compaction on surrounding vegetation within the permitted area of the

huts.

Responsible Official.--The responsible official is Donna Hepp,

Forest Supervisor, White Mountain National Forest, 719 Main Street,

Laconia, New Hampshire.

Decision to be Made.--The decision is whether or not to authorize

AMC under a 30 year term special use permit to continue to occupy

National Forest System (NFS) land in order to operate, maintain, and

reconstruct its facilities to provide public recreation and information

services as defined in the White Mountain National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and to provide other services as

outlined in the AMC's MDP, consistent with the White Mountain National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Special Use

Permit Authority. The decision includes the Forest Supervisor's

approval of site specific mitigation and/or monitoring requirements.

Issuing authority--The issuing authority will be a term special use

permit under the Term Permit Act of March 4, 1915 (38 Stat., 11.01, as

amended). The length of permit depends on the level of investment on

National Forest System lands. The value of PNVC and the Huts indicates

a term of 30 years.

Alternatives--In preparing the environmental impact statement the

Forest Service will consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the

proposed action, including a ``no action'' alternative. The no action

alternative will be the continuation of operations under the terms and

conditions of the permit issued to the AMC in 1965, as amended up

through October 29, 1995. The no action alternative is the baseline

against which the effects of other alternatives are

[[Page 3267]]

compared, and represents the present course until the action is

changed.

Response to AMC's proposed Master Development Plan demonstrated

interest by some people to consider removal of the huts from the alpine

zone. This, as well as other alternatives based on public comment, may

be analyzed. Suggestions on alternatives that meet the purpose and need

for action are welcome.

Issues--Tentative physical, biological and socio-economic issues

that have been identified related specifically to the AMC Hut and PNVC

proposal are: (1) Impacts on the alpine zone; (2) impacts on Threatened

and Endangered (T&E) species; (3) impacts on native plants and animals;

(4) impacts on water resources; (5) impacts on soil; (6) impacts on the

quality of the recreation experience; (7) impacts on the amount of

recreation use at the Huts and PNVC; (8) maintenance of recreation

opportunities represented by these facilities as part of the

implementation of the Forest Plan; (9) impacts on the visual resource;

(10) impacts on Wilderness; (11) impacts on Appalachian Trail users;

(12) impacts on the quality of life in local communities and (13)

impacts on the economy. Other comments were received during the review

of the Master Development Plan. Many comments related to administration

of the permit, concerns about community relations, advocacy, etc. Since

these are not environmental issues they will not be resolved in the

EIS. They will be considered through permit administration and other

measures.

Assisting Agencies--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the New Hampshire Department of

Resources and Economic Development, Natural Heritage Inventory and New

Hampshire Department of Fish and Game have been asked to provide

assistance.

For further information--Direct questions about the proposed action

and environmental impact statement to AMC Permit Project Coordinator,

White Mountain National Forest, 719 Main Street, Laconia, New Hampshire

03246, ATT: R. Oreskes, or phone Rebecca Oreskes at 603-466-2713 Ext

212.

SCOPING: The initial scoping period begins January 21, 1997 and ends

March 7, 1997. The DEIS is expected to be completed in the fall of

1997.

The Forest Service is inviting written comments and suggestions on

the scope of the analysis. A scoping letter will be sent to interested

and affected individuals and organizations. In addition, the agency

gives notice of the full environmental analysis and decision-making

process that will occur on the proposal so interested and affected

people are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the

final decision.

Public participation has been and will continue to be important

throughout this process. Before this official scoping began the Forest

Service asked for comment on AMC's proposed Master Development Plan.

The Forest held three public listening sessions and received several

thousand comments, letters, cards and phone calls on AMC's operation in

the Forest. These comments are still valid and will be used in the

scoping process and environmental analysis.

All the input received to date as well as the input from this

scoping will be used as part of the formal scoping process which

includes:

1. Identifying potential issues.

2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been

covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.

4. Exploring additional alternatives.

5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed

action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects).

6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.

Submit additional written comments and suggestions concerning the

scope of the analysis to AMC Permit Team, White Mountain National

Forest, 719 Main St., Laconia, New Hampshire 03246. Comments beyond

those already on hand must be received by March 7, 1997.

The second stage of formal public involvement is on the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for

public review in Fall 1997. At that time EPA will publish a notice of

availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on

the draft environmental impact statement will be 60 days from the date

the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in

the Federal Register.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The White Mountain National Forest will

begin the process of Forest Plan revision in 1997 and plans to issue a

Notice of Intent in 1998. To date we believe three Forest Plan level

issues have been raised in the context of the AMC permit. We will

carefully separate those comments applicable to the Forest Plan

revision from those in the site specific analysis. These three issues

are: (1) Appalachian Trail management, (2) the types of recreation use

on public lands and (3) the intensity of recreation use on the Forest.

Appalachian Trail Management

PNVC and some of the Huts predate the Appalachian Trail and the

Appalachian Trail was routed to take advantage of these existing

facilities. There are two types of issues relating to the Appalachian

Trail: (1) Forest Plan Standards and Guides and (2) the site specific

effects on Appalachian Trail users. We will not address the first issue

in this analysis since it relates to a larger Management Area issue

than just the AMC Huts; nothing in the AMC Hut or PNVC permitting

analysis will compromise the ability to resolve the greater Appalachian

Trail/Forest Plan Standards and Guides issue. We will address the site

specific Appalachian Trail experience in the EIS.

Types of Recreation Use on Public Lands

The current Forest Plan defines a mix of recreation uses. Neither

our monitoring nor public comment has shown user conflicts relevant to

the AMC permits that cannot be resolved on a site specific basis.

Intensity of Recreation Use

This concerns the level of recreation use on the Forest. This is a

Forest-wide issue and will continue to be addressed in Forest planning.

There are specific aspects of this issue which we will look at in this

analysis. We will analyze the site specific direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects of the Huts and PNVC and major access trails in the

EIS.

In all cases the Land and Resource Management Plan takes primacy

over special use permits. Changes in the Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan may lead to changes to special use permits.

Importance of Timely Response

The Forest Service believes that, at this early stage, it is

important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to

public participation in the environmental review process. First,

reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their

participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,

553 (1978). Also,

[[Page 3268]]

environmental objections that could be raised at the draft

environmental impact stage that are not raised until after completion

of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed

by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th cir.

1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F Supp. 1334, 1338

(E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important

that those interested in this proposed action participate by responding

to the DEIS by the close of the 45 day comment period so that

substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest

Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to

them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft

environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is

also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the

draft statements. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft

environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives

formulated or discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer

to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at

40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

After the comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be

analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final

environmental impact statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to be

completed by the Fall of 1997. In the FEIS the Forest Service is

required to respond to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The

responsible official will consider the comments, responses,

environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws,

regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposal.

The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for the

decision in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to

appeal under 36 CFR part 217 and 36 CFR part 251.

Dated: January 14, 1997.

Donna Hepp,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97-1476 Filed 1-21-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M